True Compositional Stories: Part 4 of 5
Contributed by David Mansfield on 12 October 2006 at 11:42So now I have my content, but what about my thesis? What about an introduction and conclusion and what not?
Well, regarding the thesis, I must admit to being a bit of a tease. Professor Ehrlich has said in class that she prefers a slightly more conversational style than the standard argumentative essay, and so my thesis is more a topic sentence:
Denis thus problematizes the role of the camera, and thus of “proper customary conduct as viewers,” in looking at the action unfolding in her films.
So let's look at this to see how it could be made a better thesis. Note: This post will contain some brief excerpts of admittedly non-substantive portions of my essay. Do not plagiarise them. That would be very bad.
The major roles of a thesis are to describe the stance one takes on an issue and why one is taking that stance. This sentence meets the first requirement, although the prompt essentially predetermined my stance that Denis problematizes looking. The more important part, for this paper and for theses in general, is to offer a reason for that stance, and at this my sentence fails miserably. (Note: The "thus" does not refer to anything that would acquit my sentence; it refers to introductory notes.)
So, a concise version of the stance portion is "Denis problematizes the role of the camera and thus the viewer." How might I add a reason for that?
Recall what my content was: restricted point-of-view and the presence of multiple observers, for example. My final point, about eyeline matches, was along the lines of "These other points are so strong that now this one is possible," which means I could recast the thesis along the lines of
By restricting narrative point-of-view and presenting multiple diegetic observers, Denis complicates the role of the camera and of the viewer to such an extent that even the mundane eyeline match becomes problematic.
Any reader with a grounding in film analysis would have a very clear idea what this paper will be about, and I offer my reasons for taking the stance I do. Awesome.
As for writing an introduction, my goal was to establish a reason for caring the Denis problematizes looking. Given that all films involve looking, but most relegate it to an uncomplicated given, I was able to start with
Film as a medium presupposes viewership. In any motion picture, the camera represents the audience’s point of entry into the film, the vantage from which they shall experience the narrative (or, rarely, non-narrative) contained therein. This viewership by proxy is left uncomplicated in the classic Hollywood model of continuity filmmaking, wherein the camera represents a more or less objective viewpoint through which the events comprising the narrative reach the audience. In two films directed by Claire Denis, however, the camera plays a more complicated role.
I then went on to transfer into the thesis by specifying which films and pointing out the effect of Denis's subversion. Fairly straightforward: establish a general field of relevance, then narrow to the paper's specific focus.
So how did I conclude my paper?
Thus, Denis entirely subverts the camera’s objective role in continuity cinema. Her narrative techniques of flashback and dialectic perspective call that objectivity into question, allowing her to transform a central tool of continuity filmmaking into yet another means of destabilizing point-of-view in her films. The point from which one is looking in Chocolat and Beau Travail becomes as much an issue as what one observes.
This is essentially a return to the themes of the introduction, but with different language. The main note is that it ends on a note slightly different than it started on; the final sentence is an argument that I can only make after having proven my case on the other points. That's basically what I was going for.
Anyway, I hope this is a helpful example. Come back tomorrow for the final installment - revision!